• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Leaf Rumours

habs25th said:
Couturier looks like a stud though.
Click to expand...

Given that he was only fifteen for half of the season in his rookie year and is putting up well over a point per game he's looking pretty solid so far. And he's got good size to boot. Still, he's more along the lines of a Derick Brassard-type Q prospect than a Lecavalier, Crosby, or Mario one.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Been mentioned multiple times on the Russian Prospects website by scouts there, by The Hockey News, and several scouts that I've talked to at OHL games.
Click to expand...
Links? Worst since 1996?

I for one would love a chance at Hall, Seguin, Gudbranson, Granlund, Mcfarland, Fowler, Kabanov, Niederreiter, Gormley. All seem to be quite the talent from what Ive read.
 
And I wouldn't touch McFarland with a twelve foot pole. He's got the heart and effort level of a field tree sloth given his talent level.
 
If this was Kessel's draft year where do you think he'd go?

He'd be right there with the top 3 (Hall, Seguin, Fowler), a big step above the rest.
 
I think too many people were expecting Burke to live up to his miscalculated press conference when he said, "I'm not watching this again" but you can't make predictions like that when Lee Stempniak is one of the better forwards.
 
I honeslty dont think Hall is going to be as good as some think.

From what I have seen he seems to vanish when the game gets rough.

He will be good but some treat him like the next coming of jesus.

And I know I don't have read back to see you guys are arguing with LOF
 
leafman101 said:
The irony is in once instance you won't give him credit for the team he "inherited," and in the other instance you are putting all the blame on him for a team he inherited.

Thats called irony my friend.
Click to expand...

I'm being consistent and not giving him credit in either instance.

I'm saying he pretty much rides with what he inherits. If it's good, he succeeds; if not, he doesn't.

I don't think this is a guy who knows how to build a team. Maybe he knows how to tweak a team that is already good and make it better (and the results are not long lasting), but it's looking unlikely he knows how to make a bad team good.

Because his moves so far have all been of the tweaking an already good team variety, except that he never realized he has a shit team on his hands.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
That's exactly the problem.

He's given up our 1st and sat on his chubby hands for months, watching as we slide down into the sewer with the other waste.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean anything.

Not doing anything during the year is a completely different issue than whether or not he can turn this around.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
I'm being consistent and not giving him credit in either instance.

I'm saying he pretty much rides with what he inherits. If it's good, he succeeds; if not, he doesn't.

I don't think this is a guy who knows how to build a team. Maybe he knows how to tweak a team that is already good and make it better (and the results are not long lasting), but it's looking unlikely he knows how to make a bad team good.

Because his moves so far have all been of the tweaking an already good team variety, except that he never realized he has a shit team on his hands.
Click to expand...

Burke transformed the Canucks from a 58 point team to a 104 point team inside of three years at the helm.
 
Four playoff appearances, a Northwest Division title, two 100 point seasons, and the resurgence of a previously moribund franchise that was drawing 12,000 a game and now fills GM Place over capacity every single game?
 
Oh and that NHL leading scorer this year. Guess who drafted him? I'm not nearly as high on Burke as I was at the start of the year and have been frustrated by his inability to recognize the flaws inherent in this roster (or at least address them), but detracting from his previous accomplishments does nothing to solve the problems of this campaign. He's made a few mistakes over the years as most GMs before him have and shall continue to do so in the future, he really did provide a great measure of credibility to the Canucks that was largely lacking before his arrival. His teams went from 58 to 83 to 90 to 94 to 104 points over his tenure. That's a strong progression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top